Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 50 (some duplicates have been removed)
in afghanistan >> ah, yes. and that is a very important part of "the haunting legacy" because chapter 3 with carter and really right up through with reagan and bush one, vietnam and afghanistan have been sort of intellectually married and why do i say that? because zbigniew brzezinski whom you know very well and has undoubtedly many on this program many times, brzezinski when he wasnational security advisor to prident carter, we were very fortunate. we got ahold of hisecret wall streeting memos to carter about what he thought carter ought to do in foreign policy. zbigniew brzezinski actually had in his mind that if we could suck the russians in more deeply into afghanistan we could create what he called heir vietnam." and in his mind, that kind of a loss, soviet troops in humiliation, having to leave afghanistan to go back to the soviet union loaded up with drugs, terrible shape, the equipment absolutely destroyed, they went back and in spig's mind, this could lead to the disintegration of the communist power in the soviet union because the red ar is the core the strength, the inner str
the thdrawal in afghanistan to u.s. relationships with china. the los angeles angels of anaheim has written apart from the firs family there may b no one who spends more time than donilon. as the u.s. faces economic challenges at home and rapid changes abroad with an arab spring, the white houshas made its mission to restore american prestige and influence and power around the world. i'm pleased t have tom donilon at this table for the first time welcome. >> thank you, charlie, great to be here. good to see you. >> rose: there's so much to talk about in limited time. we could spend 30 minutes just talking about your biography and your friendship with warren christopher, the clinton administration, all of that. you combine policy and politics in earlier careers and now it's the focus of the united states and its relationship with the world. how do you view the mission? because you said you wanted to restore america's credibility, its influence, its respect, and its power. >> well, i think that's exactly right, and that is our core goal at this point. we came into office in 2009 after a diffi
president obama will announce how many troo will bring home from afghanistan beginning next month. the announcement follows months of debate in the white house, it comes with increasing concern in the war andure role in the country. the administration fac a number of challenges at home. unemployment remains high at 9.1%. the housing market continues to suffer and the u.s. debt has surpassed 14 trillion dollars. all of this will pose a significant challenge for the president in the 2012 eltion. joining me now a group of comments from the new york time from washington david brooks, with me here in new york, david leonhardt, roger cohen and tom friedman. they have all won too many awards to talk about. mi pleased to have all of them on this program today to talk about america. what's the challenge for us? because wherever i go around the world the thing they say is tt we want america to take care of their business at home first, so that they can lead the world and pla an important part as the rest of the world changes. >> well, charlie, i think the world does understan that america p
imagine getting there in a variety of ways. you count savings from withdrawal of troops, from afghanistan and from iraq. you have some other defense cuts can, you have a whole bunch of discretionary cuts. you do some little things on mandatory programs that are not social security or medicare. and so then the deal gets done and some ofhese big questions on medicare and taxes get saved for the 2012 campaign. on the other hand, whenou read quotes which you occasionally read, from congressional staffers, republican staff are saying, you know, ybe a showdown in whiche don't get this deal isn't the worst thing. that does make you wonder how many people within congress think that actually no deal would be better than a deal. and my colleague david brooks argues that that would be very bad for the republicans politically. i'm not so sure about that. there is only one president and there's only one ecomy and i think there's a chance that chaos and no deal actually hurts the white house and to the extent that the republicans agree with that, then we could be in for a really dicey couple of months.
important than the sergeant in afghanistan? that's a tough decision to make. those are the kinds of choices that have to be made, the kind of contingency plans that the treasury is mapping out today. it really terribly dangerous. >> let me ask you, before i turn to bigger issues, what are the political consequences for the president, for the speaker of the house, and for those republicans who are taking a hard-line in the house of representatives? >> well, i mean, i think the president believes that because public opinion is more on his side than on the republican de, particularly on the shape of a big plan or who has been less willing to compromise, that they feel that almost any outcome is likely to be beneficial to the president politically. i think that when he went on the tv on monday night, his speech was aimed at the independence that the white house is -- independents that the white house is so focused on to convince them he's the reasonable player in this. i'm not sure that that's necessarily the case when we come out of this that he'll benefit politically. i think everybody could
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 50 (some duplicates have been removed)